About your Search

20100101
20100131
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
that this decision has been issued. and at a time when americans are so worried about having a say in washington, this just brushes those worries, saying leave it to big money, they will take care of you. source stand here today with congressman van hollen to say that we will not let this decision go unchallenged. every voter, every future candidate for office will be an underdog against big business interests powered by this decision, and the committee with jurisdiction over this issue, i'm announcing we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision over the coming worked. we will explore what potential legislation could mitigate the damage this decision could have on our democracy. we are committed to pursuing legislation but can we implement the ban on corporate spending or at the very least modify it in a significant way. we cannot and will not allow for corporations to unduly influence elections and cast a shadow of corruption on our system of government. it is imperative if you believe in this democracy to act and act now, and we will. >> thank you. i am pleased to be shared with my fr
thing to do. this is what some powerful interest group wants. . . >> c-span radio, covering washington like no other. ♪ >> this is c-span's "america and the court's." next, oral arguments from fox news vs. the board of governors and bloomberg vs. the board of governors from the second circuit court of appeals in new york city. the court will decide whether or not to block a lower-court ruling that will force the federal reserve to reveal the identities of financial restitution is that may have collapsed without assistance from the government's to our program. -- tarp program. [inaudible] >> i will call the day calendar and asking everybody is here. in the two cases to be heard in tandem, good afternoon. the board of governors will split the argument between two lawyers. what will be the principle of division? >> [inaudible] >> you ought to make that clear, because it does not lend itself to any division. i see everyone else is here. ok. united states vs. rojas, counsel present? good afternoon. united states vs. acosta andmillow? everybody is here. chobaz vs. holder. singleton vs. hol
that people assume it has been there forever. why wasn't it? >> early on, when washington was being billed, they actually mentioned there should be a hall of justice for the supreme court, but it was never built. using the capital for storage, there was no conference room there. they met on wednesdays, when the senate did not meet, to discuss cases. and justices worked out of their homes. they would have messengers who would go from one justices house to another house with a draft of opinions. i think sometimes that if any of those justices have known that sometimes the messengers were just riding the streetcar, if they have lost the case, that had gotten out, somebody could have made a killing on the stock market knowing what the court was going to do in advance. but that never happened. and some of the justices were happy with that arrangement. they could come to the capital when a case was being heard. >> taft himself, it sounds like there was resistance to getting a supreme court building built itself. did it take someone might him, -- like him, or could anybody have got in that buildi
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)